Income Tax Officer Ward-20(4) vs Registrar Of Companies And Ors.

This petition has been filed by Income Tax Authority invoking the provisions of Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of the name

of the Respondent No. 2 company, viz M/s Rahul Components Pvt. Ltd, in the Register of Companies maintained by the RoC, respondent no. 1.

Service was duly effected on the respondent company and its Directors. Other than the RoC, none appeared on behalf of the other respondent to

oppose the prayer made by the petitioner. While respondent no. 2 to 5 were proceeded ex-parte, respondent no.1, the RoC submitted that they have

no objections to the prayer of the applicant being granted by this bench.

Vide Proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the office of the RoC, names of several companies were struck off for

want of filing Statutory Returns.

Respondent no.2 company, which had also not filed any Return or Financial Statement was duly struck off from the Register of Companies.

Invoking the provision of section 252 of the Act, the Income Tax Dept. prays for its restoration in order to carry out proceedings initiated against

them. As per averments, on the basis of the AIR information received by the dept, the respondent company has received contractual income totaling

Rs. 8,93,259/- during the F.Y 2010-11 on which TDS was deducted, the respondent company had failed to file its returns for the relevant AY 2011-12.

Ld. Standing Counsel for the IT dept. submits that there are recovery & penalty proceedings pending under Section 148 of Income Tax Act. Action

in accordance with law is required to be initiated against the company. Notice dated 26.03.2018 u/ s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to

the respondent at its registered address/ email id as well as vide affixation to which there has been no response.

The grievance of the Income Tax Dept is also that no intimation was received by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer having change over the

company. It was incumbent on the RoC to notify them as per Sub Rule 2 of Rule 7 of The Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the

Register of Companies) Rules, 2016 prior to taking the impugned step.

Ld. Counsel for the Income Tax Submits that the aforesaid facts necessitate restoration of the name of the Respondent Company in the Register of

Companies to proceed further in accordance with law. In view of the grounds raised by the applicant, being an aggrieved person, the prayer can be

entertained u/s 252(3) of the Code.

We however make it clear that this Bench has only directed restoration of the name of the appellant company in the Register of Companies

maintained by the ROC on the basis of averment made in the petition and in no way endorse or have adjudicated about their entitlement to recover

which shall be adjudicated by the department subject to the laws of limitation governing such recoveries. Charges involved in seeking restoration of the

company's name with the office of the RoC shall be borne by the applicant. Petition is disposed off in terms of the above. Compliance be made with

the RoC within 30 days.

The petition is therefore allowed. The RoC is therefore directed to restore the name of the Respondent Company in their Register and also

proceed to take such other and further penal action against the respondents in accordance with the statutory provisions.